In its decision in eBay v. MercExchange Yesterday, the US Supreme Court has ruled that "the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with the traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards", overturning a ruling of the Federal Circuit that "courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances."
This comes a little late for Research in Motion (RIM), which recently settled the BlackBerry patent dispute with NTP, a licensing firm for some $600 Million.
I think that whereas the issue of whether infringement causes more damage than injunctive relief is of relevance in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction, I do not accept that patent holders should not be able to exact royalties from infringers, who probably should do due diligence and sort out licensing agreements. Patents are fundamentally rights to prevent others from exploiting technology, and this should not be forgotten.
Patent trolls may do little to further technological advances. However, regardless of "public good" philosophies behind the patent system, at the end of the day patents are only legal boundaries that stake claims for technology areas where others are not allowed to operate without permission. If one cannot prevent trespassing by injunctions, the whole system is in danger of collapse.
